The Coming Lean Times

[JessicaM]

Very interesting article here (http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50049/) regarding the coming energy shortage and what it might do to our society.

I have no comment; I'm still thinking about it.

[secretary]

I'm not worried. I have connections (http://traveldreamsite.blogs.com/photos/lancaster_pennsylvania/buggy.png)

[WarrenM]

Won't happen within my lifetime and I'm not leaving any crotchlings behind to suffer. Not caring.

[DeepT]

This should probably be a P&R thread but this is how I see it.

IF... a big IF... the author is right and we end up suddenly without an energy supply, gas for cars is going to be the least of our problems. You will not have power for your homes, water and sewage systems will cease to work, your supermarket will have no food, etc...

It will cause a complete collapse of our nation and the world in general. People will need food and water and they will take it from anywhere they can get it. Farm land will have to be defended from poachers, and private property will need to be defended if it has any value at all. You going to wish you bought more guns and ammo at wal-mart while you could have.

Anyway... I think such as scenario is somewhat far-fetched and is fear mongering at it's best.

What will really happen if there is a sharp decline in oil / gas output over 20 or 30 years is that the prices will go up, free market forces will step in, and alternative energy sources will be found and used.

For example, fuel cell cars. We have the technology now, but we do not see cars at your average dealer's lot using this. The reason is that fuel cell cars cost a lot more then gas cars. Now if gas became so expensive that the cost to operate them was prohibitive, then we would see fuel cell cars all over the place, and your local gas station would have hydrogen pumps to fuel them with.

[Elton]

I think the article's kind of alarmist, but there will be interesting side effects for sure. Will the competition for increasingly scarce oil cause political tensions between the U.S. and China? Will there be renewed enthusiasm in the U.S. for public transportation, or even commuting by bicycle? (I add that because I live in the Netherlands and bike to work every day, as many people here do.) The way higher oil prices will affect suburban growth patterns is an intriguing topic. I don't foresee a major catastrophe though, just a shift to more fuel-efficient cars, maybe more emphasis on trains for freight and interstate travelling, and some belt-tightening until substitutes for oil are perfected.

Edit: Also, what DeepT said. Oil isn't going to run out over night.

[cliffski]

Won't happen within my lifetime and I'm not leaving any crotchlings behind to suffer. Not caring.


same here on the no kids, and not so young im mega worried, but isn't it attittudes like this that have got us into this mess?

[Slainte Mhath]

To further expound on what DeepT is driving at (no pun intended), the scenario the article's author lays out will never really come about because of the very forces that put us into this situation to begin with, big businesses.

I mean seriously, does anyone think the energy companies, Wal-Mart, P&G, ConAgra and other huge conglomerates are just going to run out of products to sell us and say "Oh crap, we should have seen this coming!?" Energy companies especially are well aware that oil and gas are finite resources. There has been research going on in the field of alternative energy for decades. I'm willing to bet there are soulitions already discovered to run cars, furnaces, air conditioners and everything else on alternative energy sources, but none of these companies are going to bring those solutions forward when it's still far more profitable to exploit the world's dependance on fossil fuels. Big business is all about producing the largest amounts of products in the cheapest and quickest way possible, they won't change methods until they have to, but make no mistake, they have plans to make those changes and stay in business.

Am I worried that we rely too much on fossil fuels. Sure. Am I worried that my kids will inherit all sorts of problems with the environment that we created, of course. Am I worried that I'll wake up one month to discover we've been thrust back into the 1800's because all the natural gas and curde oil suddenly ran out? Not really...

[noun]

Sounds awful, all right. But I don't care. Not only that, I refuse to care. Why? Because there's not a damn thing I can do to stop it. I could devote the rest of my life to eating only the food I grow myself, riding a bicycle, and buying only the things I absolutely need. But it wouldn't make the slightest dent to offest the number of Wal-Mart shopping, fast food eating, SUV driving, reality TV watching Americans out there.

[Elton]

Fatalism is the new activism?

[Nick Walter]

Wait, is this another OMG-THE-OIL-WILL-SUDDENLY-GO-AWAY scare?

The 70s called, they want their dire prophecies back.

[cliffski]

in the seventies I dont recall oil companies getting caught lying to the stock market about the size of the reserves, nor did we have a cheif executive of an oil company who rides a bike and refuses to buy cars for his kids.
Both these have happened in the last few years in the UK.
There isn't a bottomless pit full of the stuff.

[John Many Jars]

Who cares if the civilization that produced "My Humps" and American Idol collapses? Let it all fuckin' burn.

[noun]

Fatalism is the new activism?

Realism > Activism > Fatalism

I can't do a goddamn thing about the lower than average IQ moron too stupid to contemplate the danger.

Who cares if the civilization that produced "My Humps" and American Idol collapses? Let it all fuckin' burn.

Preach it, brother.

[madkevin]

Who cares if the civilization that produced "My Humps" and American Idol collapses? Let it all fuckin' burn.

Yeah, but they also produced jazz and comic books.

[Raife]

Yeah, but they also produced jazz and comic books.

Is that an argument for or against?

[Nick Walter]

in the seventies I dont recall oil companies getting caught lying to the stock market about the size of the reserves, nor did we have a cheif executive of an oil company who rides a bike and refuses to buy cars for his kids.
Both these have happened in the last few years in the UK.
There isn't a bottomless pit full of the stuff.

Facts are fairly irrelevant to alarmist prophecies.

[Elton]

The good old days were tremendously, unimaginably shitty compared to the society and culture of today. I'll accept a thousand My Humps clones as long as they pacify the masses and keep them contributing to the global economy that produces sushi and Christopher Nolan movies and open-ended RPGs. I'm a snob too but at least I don't want to crush the economy just to indirectly punish the purveyors and consumers of lowbrow pop culture.

[madkevin]

Is that an argument for or against?

Hey, man, any culture that can produce Monk's "Straight, No Chaser" and Love & Rockets comics is OK by me.

[WarrenM]

There isn't a bottomless pit full of the stuff.
No, but there are many pits we haven't emptied yet due to cost. During our lifetimes, the cost of gas will go up as oil gets more expensive to extract. This will cause problems, yes, but not the downfall of civilization. Alternative fuels will be found and put into use. The time when oil is phasing out, new sources of energy will be phasing in.

It won't be an easy or painless transition, but there will be a transition nonetheless.

Why do I believe that? Because whoever solves the energy crisis stands to become richer than God. It'll happen.

[Chris Nahr]

We can still make beer without oil, right? So what's all this talk of "lean times" about?

[mouselock]

There has been research going on in the field of alternative energy for decades. I'm willing to bet there are soulitions already discovered to run cars, furnaces, air conditioners and everything else on alternative energy sources, but none of these companies are going to bring those solutions forward when it's still far more profitable to exploit the world's dependance on fossil fuels.

You know, every time I see this argument it strikes me as hopelessly naive. There are not such solutions. Why? Because none of these businesses employ scientists to discover these solutions. Unless I'm supposed to believe that there's a black-ops squad out there kidnapping scientists and erasing their previous existence a-la Men in Black here, the companies have hopelessly few scientists to form some sort of secret think-tank.

There's also not a whole lot of university scientists out there who bizarrely never have need of any money and never publish to form this cadre of crack energy researchers.

Instead there are a lot of scientists out there scrambling for a little money that comes almost exclusively from the government on trying to figure out how to do things like facilitate safe hydrogen storage or investigate biodiesel or the like.

Sorry, there's no 11th hour white knight out there who's going to allow us to pop little pills in our cars and ride off into the sunset, oil free. The good news is there are already well developed technologies (like the aforementioned biodiesel) that are perfectly viable with a tremendous capital outlay to retrofit/rebuild systems currently designed for traditional hydrocarbon fuels into alcohol based fuels. They have their ups and downs, but at least they are renewable fuels if you have the land mass.

[John Many Jars]

This "good as well as bad" stuff is for dupes and squares. My Love and Rockets collection will be lost in the coming conflagration along with the last DVD copy of Outcast, my remastered CD of Radios Appear, and the recipe for nougat, and I'll throw myself into the flames cackling at the thought that I am forever free of "My Humps" and the atavistic ape-people who consumed it. ARMAGEDDON! ACHTUNG!

[RickH]

PANIC NOW!!

[JMR]

Shit this sounds like Leto II is going to cut us all off from the spice.

[ElGuapo]

We need a good pandemic to thin out the herd.

You think I'm joking.

[WarrenM]

We need a good pandemic to thin out the herd.

You think I'm joking.
No, but I was taken aback by your "in my face" edginess. Quite shocking!

I agree that there are too many people on the planet, but oil sputtering out while something else takes it's place is hardly going to do much to help.

[Slainte Mhath]

The good news is there are already well developed technologies (like the aforementioned biodiesel) that are perfectly viable with a tremendous capital outlay to retrofit/rebuild systems currently designed for traditional hydrocarbon fuels into alcohol based fuels. They have their ups and downs, but at least they are renewable fuels if you have the land mass.

Explain to me how this is different than "solutions already discovered that are not going to be implemented because it's far more profitable to exploit the world's dependance on fossil fuels"?

I never said there is a magic pill to pop into your gas tank and go. I said that research has gone into alternative energy sources for decades and that the reason we're still using fossil fuels is because it's far cheaper and easier (and thus more profitable) to continue producing them than the alternative stuff.

And if you think the major energy corporations aren't keenly aware of the economy behind oil and natural gas, and the eventual need to provide alternatives to be able to stay in business and continue to reap huge profits, then it's you who is naive.

[AndrewM]

Sorry, there's no 11th hour white knight out there who's going to allow us to pop little pills in our cars and ride off into the sunset, oil free. The good news is there are already well developed technologies (like the aforementioned biodiesel) that are perfectly viable with a tremendous capital outlay to retrofit/rebuild systems currently designed for traditional hydrocarbon fuels into alcohol based fuels. They have their ups and downs, but at least they are renewable fuels if you have the land mass.

I'm sure nobody is sitting on tech that is cheaper than oil, but certainly there are energy sources that will become more viable as the price of oil rises. For instance, the Canadian tar sands and as you mentioned biodiesel. I think if the price of oil slowly rises, things will be okay, because that will give people a chance to make the capital outlays that you mentioned. People have been predicting doom for more than 30 years, and we're doing okay thus far. I think right now, some kind of global warming tipping point is probably more of a danger to humanity than running out of energy.

Is it well-established that turning corn into fuel results in a net gain in energy? Modern agriculture uses fossil-fuel based fertilizer, not to mention all the energy needed to produce the crops.

[WarrenM]

And if you think the major energy corporations aren't keenly aware of the economy behind oil and natural gas, and the eventual need to provide alternatives to be able to stay in business and continue to reap huge profits, then it's you who is naive.
And those companies DO employ scientists and researchers. Lots of them.

Money is involved here. Huge money. They're on the case.

[Ben Sones]

Facts are fairly irrelevant to alarmist prophecies.

I found the article to be fairly alarmist as well, but that doesn't mean that he didn't make any good points. Particularly, his I think he makes a good point when he says that we place too much stock in solutions that do not yet exist, i.e. alternative fuel sources. You never hear much--or any--speculation about what might happen if there is no effective alternative to oil, even though realistically, that is not at all a far-fetched scenario, and our "it will all work out in the end" attitude is pretty irrational.

[Nick Walter]

You never hear much--or any--speculation about what might happen if there is no effective alternative to oil, even though realistically, that is not at all a far-fetched scenario

Yes, it is a far fetched scenario. Oil isn't some magic juice that does secret voodoo. We use it for power in various scenarios but alternatives exist for all of them.

[noun]

Well, which of the following scenarios is more likely to happen?

1) Oil magnates helplessly watch as their billions of dollars evaporate into nothingness as the world descends into a state of chaos and reverts back to a barter economy as goods are delivered by horse and carts, or

2) Oil magnates order scientists to predict to the day when the last drop of oil can affordably be pulled from the earth, while ordering other scientists to come up with an alternative energy solution that the magnates can roll out at the last minute?

Remember, the next solution doesn't have to be cheaper than the price of oil today; it just has to be cheaper than the price of oil 20-30 years from now.

[WarrenM]

You never hear much--or any--speculation about what might happen if there is no effective alternative to oil, even though realistically, that is not at all a far-fetched scenario, and our "it will all work out in the end" attitude is pretty irrational.
You're never going to know about the alternative until it's ready to be marketed and sold, so this is pretty much the only attitude that one can take.

It'll either get fixed or it won't. I'm fairly confident there are people in high places, on both sides of the argument, preparing for their particular situation.

[WarrenM]

Remember, the next solution doesn't have to be cheaper than the price of oil today; it just has to be cheaper than the price of oil 20-30 years from now.
Ding! Winner.

[Ben Sones]

Remember, the next solution doesn't have to be cheaper than the price of oil today; it just has to be cheaper than the price of oil 20-30 years from now.

But a large part of the point that he was trying to make is that a scenario in which energy is available but considerably more expensive would still have far-reaching consequences. Our current way of life doesn't just depend on energy--it depends on cheap energy.

[Drastic]

But a large part of the point that he was trying to make is that a scenario in which energy is available but considerably more expensive would still have far-reaching consequences. Our current way of life doesn't just depend on energy--it depends on cheap energy.
Exactly so--and the amount of pain involved in transitioning to a society that remains functional with an acceptable quality of life on more expensive energy will depend heavily on the rate at which our energy becomes more expensive.

Kunstler's a believer that the rate of energy expense increase is going to be much steeper and faster than people, and the country's political will (or political won't), are really prepared for. Is he right? No idea, but I am pretty sure that "I'd prefer him not to be" usually doesn't work so well in swaying reality's vote on things.

Handwaving the concern away because the oil magnates will save us all seems a little silly to me. I might simply be too cynical about human nature, but I'm pretty sure that if I were a fabulously wealthy oil magnate with a better idea of the timeline of energy expense crunch my concerns would be how to leverage my fabulous wealth to a) maintain that wealth and privilege, b) increase it, and c) make sure whatever societal problems were caused by added energy expense didn't affect me. As long as those points are met, I'll play the world's smallest violin about what happens to unprepared exurb dwellers.

Ninja: still, I suspect people will stumble on through one way or another. Hopefully it simply won't be as lean as predicted, and I'd be delighted if Mr. Fusion rolls out in fine stores everywhere in 2010 and makes the entire thing look downright foolish in retrospect.

[tromik]

Sorry if somone already brought this up, but doesn't the US have more than enough power? I thought that the US had so many power stations that the grids where overlapping everywhere, where the wouldn't need to be. Don't remember where I read/heard this, maybe it's incorrect.

[wisefool]

People still talk about PRICE of oil. The stated problem is the point where it takes more total energy to explore and pump gas out than what you get.

Just google for 'peak oil' to get really depressed.

On a personal note I had read this stuff a while back. I ended up very depressed. I am no materials scientist nor anyone able to contribute to a technomagical cure. The problem is I do have a family I care for. When I was a kid I had nightmares of waking up in post-apocalypse and having to fend off predators (human and otherwise) and secure food. I think it comes from too much family being in war and telling gruesome stories, you end up feeling very insecure.

Anyway, the happy point of the story is when I realized I started to think just like the Unabomber, thought I'm not sure about lumping computer scientists along with the rest of his victims. What I'd change is go to a substantially warmer place thought, as I'm not sure just how much wood one would need to stay alive. And I'd need to learn to shoot and provide for a small band of people so we can fend off larger gangs.

Since I don't want to act like the Unabomber, I'm content with putting on my shades and turning on the AC.

==
The predicted apocalypse: The sad part is things are incredibly specialized. You all remember induction. How many of us can go take a functioning watermill and create a dynamo?

Enviromental concerns are real. China, for example, is approaching crisis on several fronts. I use the example because they are newly-industrializing on a massive scale. The Yangtze pink dolphins are now extinct, and for once it wasn't cause their inner organs are aphrodasics. They must have tasted really badly, or swam REALLY REALLY fast. I went a few years ago and the river was filled with floating dead fish. We'd see men paddling around collecting these dead fish. This is before the 3 Gorges Dam was functional.

Their water tables are decaying rapidly as urban population rises - people like to shower and use western-style toilets. There are dreams, but there's so many people in China that we don't have the resources for them to live like say, Tokyo.

As an aside for ethanol: Brazilian ethanol seems to be efficient - sugar cane's easy to grow down there. Ethanol produced in Florida is economically inefficient. No economic liberal should support sugar production there. Grow it in poor countries with more sunlight, cheap labor, and less gasoline used.

[Odysseus]

The Ergosphere (http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/) is good for a dose of energy reality. Or maybe just very convincing bullshit, but hey, at least he sources everything.

This (http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/11/sustainability-energy-independence-and.html) is the distillation of his entire blog. (Edit: if you're having nightmares about a post-peakoil wasteland where we fight with mutant dogs over scraps of food, you should probably read things like this.)

[AndrewM]

If it costs more energy to get oil than can be extracted from the oil, surely that will be reflected in very high oil prices.

The book Hubert's Peak is a pretty interesting book on this subject, even if you don't buy the doomsaying, as it talks about what makes oil.

[skedastic]

Stuff like Limits to Growth or anything Paul Ehrlich has written are prime examples of junk science. The Kunstler article doesn't even rise to that level of analysis. It's laughable crap. (I particularly enjoyed the bit about the oil crisis fucking up the mortgage market. ) If I hadn't looked up the author's credentials and found that his scientific training consists of an undergraduate degree in theatre, I'd think the article was parody.

[Shadarr]

I can foresee a world where long-distance travel and shipping becomes prohibitively expensive. This would spell the end of the airline industry and cheap goods from China, but I don't think it would be the end of civilization. More likely if there isn't anything with a comparable energy density we'll just end up moving into denser urban centers, driving electric cars or taking transit and communicating with people in other cities via the internet. Maybe the suburbs would be turned back into farmland and we'd finally get some of those kickass bullet trains over here. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

[ElGuapo]

Explain, when the oil runs out, how we are going to make new plastic.

[Shadarr]

Recycle old plastic?

[Lunch of Kong]

Explain, when the oil runs out, how we are going to make new plastic.

Out of old people.

[Fugitive]

Explain, when the oil runs out, how we are going to make new plastic.
I'd be surprised if biodiesel couldn't be adapted as a source (though that segues into the 'can we make enough biodiesel' question).

Failing that, it's about time wood-paneled station wagons made a comeback anyway.

[Reldan]

For example, fuel cell cars. We have the technology now, but we do not see cars at your average dealer's lot using this. The reason is that fuel cell cars cost a lot more then gas cars. Now if gas became so expensive that the cost to operate them was prohibitive, then we would see fuel cell cars all over the place, and your local gas station would have hydrogen pumps to fuel them with.

Hydrogen fuel cells are simply an energy storage and transfer method, much like a battery. Where are you going to get the energy needed to produce the hydrogen? You don't net anything when it takes more energy than you can extract in the end. That's the magic of oil - it only takes 1 barrel of oil worth of energy to drill and produce 5 barrels.

Anyways, I saw no mention of the very obvious, but not as cost-effective, energy sources that we could be using right now if we had to. North America alone has enough discovered oil shale to produce a trillion barrels of oil. Also, breeder reactors could provide untold amounts of energy given the abundance of U-238 in the world.

We're set for a couple of centuries of energy just with using technologies already discovered and proven. I'd be way more worried about whether we're still around by then than I would be that we'll run out of energy.

Hell, if you want to talk about something scary, I'd say overpopulation mixed with the tenets of organized religion is going to create a much larger problem.

[Odysseus]

Sugar (http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn9440-sugar-plastic-could-reduce-reliance-on-petroleum.html), baby.

[chemdem]

Well, which of the following scenarios is more likely to happen?

1) Oil magnates helplessly watch as their billions of dollars evaporate into nothingness as the world descends into a state of chaos and reverts back to a barter economy as goods are delivered by horse and carts, or

2) Oil magnates order scientists to predict to the day when the last drop of oil can affordably be pulled from the earth, while ordering other scientists to come up with an alternative energy solution that the magnates can roll out at the last minute?

Remember, the next solution doesn't have to be cheaper than the price of oil today; it just has to be cheaper than the price of oil 20-30 years from now.
Neither.

I pretended to to be an Oil magnate and ordered myself to solve the alternative energy conundrum so that I can roll it out at the last minute and make a mint. Unfortunately, I whined and complained about needing time, money, and a former Rockette dancer to be my lab assistant.

I am happy to report that indeed Oil companies have lots of scientists and spend a whole boatload of money on research. Only a small fraction of that money and brain power goes to basic research, which is necessary for a breakthrough on alternative fuels. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the basic research oil companies engage in has to do with alternative fuels. The vast majority of basic research the oil companies engage in has to do with organic synthesis and the manufacture of fine chemicals.

The oil companies like every other business cannot afford to have to much basic research going on because they have no idea when or even if the research will ever produce a viable product.

I for one will not be holding my breathe waiting for the Oil-men to save me with an alternative fuel.

[WarrenM]

The oil companies like every other business cannot afford to have to much basic research going on because they have no idea when or even if the research will ever produce a viable product.

I for one will not be holding my breathe waiting for the Oil-men to save me with an alternative fuel.
Nonsense. They have everything to lose by oil going away and nothing to gain. They're on it.

Ninja: These are companies with record setting profits every quarter. They make something like $75,000 a minute. They can afford to throw a few scientists at this.

[John Many Jars]

Here's a timely article about making plastic from chicken feathers and eggs:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17934055/

[Kyle Wilson]

Anyone who really thinks that the prevailing wisdom is wrong and that terrible oil shortages are right around the corner should put their money where their mouths are and invest in oil futures. If they're right, and futures are dramatically undervalued, then they'll be rich enough to hire a private army to defend themselves in the coming dark age. If they're wrong, and the collective wisdom of the market is correct, then they'll lose their life savings to people who actually put a lot of time and effort into estimating the future price of oil accurately.

[WarrenM]

I own oil stock.

[wisefool]

Anyways, I saw no mention of the very obvious, but not as cost-effective, energy sources that we could be using right now if we had to. North America alone has enough discovered oil shale to produce a trillion barrels of oil. Also, breeder reactors could provide untold amounts of energy given the abundance of U-238 in the world.


Thanks Reldan! I feel a lot better now. I forgot that last time when I was in this funk, a geek friend reminded me of good old nuclear fission. He's one of those people who DOES want one in his backyard.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

I don't particularly worry about "running out" of energy, but I do worry about rising costs and a bumpy transition period when the flow of oil starts to slow.

[noun]

Look. We all knew the economic model of earning $50K a year sitting on your ass and surfing the Web all day and using those wages to max out your credit cards buying dirt cheap plastic junk and eating four course meals at minimum wage paying restaurants wasn't viable in the long run. It's been a great run, but it will end eventually. No, you probably won't be able to drive your SUV over to the local Wal-Mart and buy a metric ton of useless shit for $20 any more. Sorry. But civilization will NOT collapse because of it.

[Gordon Cameron]

Anyone who really thinks that the prevailing wisdom is wrong and that terrible oil shortages are right around the corner should put their money where their mouths are and invest in oil futures. If they're right, and futures are dramatically undervalued, then they'll be rich enough to hire a private army to defend themselves in the coming dark age. If they're wrong, and the collective wisdom of the market is correct, then they'll lose their life savings to people who actually put a lot of time and effort into estimating the future price of oil accurately.

Maybe they don't hold the opinion strongly enough to bet their life's savings on it. This is all just armchair chat, ya know.

[shift6]

Explain, when the oil runs out, how we are going to make new plastic.
Can plastics be made from the heavier crudes that are easy enough to extract (shales, etc) but which don't lend themselves to much gasoline production?

[Shadarr]

What we really need is for somebody to genetically engineer a plant that grows little sacs of 94 octane gasoline.

[Ed Solomon]

But a large part of the point that he was trying to make is that a scenario in which energy is available but considerably more expensive would still have far-reaching consequences. Our current way of life doesn't just depend on energy--it depends on cheap energy.
Dude, you act like it's going to turn the US into the siege of Leningrad. Gas in Europe is what, seven bucks a gallon? That's hardly cheap, and last I checked, they aren't hitting each other over the head with entrenching tools to scoop out and eat each other's brains.

[DeepT]

Hydrogen fuel cells are simply an energy storage and transfer method, much like a battery. Where are you going to get the energy needed to produce the hydrogen? You don't net anything when it takes more energy than you can extract in the end. That's the magic of oil - it only takes 1 barrel of oil worth of energy to drill and produce 5 barrels.

Not quite like a battery. It is closer to an internal combustion engine, only there are no moving parts, and the exhaust is pure water.

However, getting the hydrogen fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy) is not as expensive or hard as you think.

The one thing to also consider is the economy of scale. Producing hydrogen now is more expensive because we only make a little. If we increased our production by a million fold, or even more, you can expect a huge increase in efficiency.

Finally, with current fuel cell technology, factoring the cost of making hydrogen through electrolysis, these cells are 33% efficient. Without that cost, they are 80% efficient. By comparison, an internal combustion engine is only 20% to 30% efficient and that only counts the power in the refined gas, not the power it took during the refining process.

Basically if you had a fuel cell that powered a device to separate hydrogen from water, and it fueled itself, your 'profit' would be 33% of the hydrogen fuel made.

Since the water itself is so cheap, this is a pretty good deal.

[Rimbo]

"Crotchlings?"


I'll just repeat what's been already covered: When new oil is discovered, it shoots out of the ground of its own accord for about 5-10 years. You then put one of those bobby thingys on it, and that'll get you oil for another 70 years.

After 70 years, you will have extracted roughly 30% of the total oil in there. And that's basically doin' nothin'.

In order to do anything else to extract the oil, the price of oil has to be above, say, $40 a barrel for it to be worth the money. You know how much oil costs right now per barrel? A fuckload more than $40.

Yep. Nothing to see here.

[Igor Muravyev]

The good news is ethanol. The bad news is there could be not enough food to feed the entire world in the next 50 years, so is using corn for ethanol the best idea? Hmm..

[Ben Sones]

Dude, you act like it's going to turn the US into the siege of Leningrad.

I do? I can't recall saying or even implying anything of the sort. In fact, I specifically said that I found his predictions to be overly alarmist. But I do agree with him that an end of cheap energy would have some serious consequences on our way of life here, in part because our society's infrastructure has grown so thoroughly decentralized (i.e. suburban) in the last 50 years.

Gas in Europe is what, seven bucks a gallon? That's hardly cheap, and last I checked, they aren't hitting each other over the head with entrenching tools to scoop out and eat each other's brains.

See, this is where you are mistaken.

[Coca Cola Zero]

Peak Oil debate, huh? The table vs jetski argument can't be far behind.

[Moore]

Someone get back to me with a date on all this.

If it's after 2050-2060 or so, I dont care, though I'll feel a bit bad for my friends and family's children. My dogs will be dead, I'll be 80 something. I won't even know what oil IS, I'll think my name is super mario and go around breaking my hip jumping on people.

[Rimbo]

I won't feel bad even if it does come to pass, because people typically find a way to deal with these things.

Oh darn, no more SUV's. Whoopee.

[Arbit]

"Crotchlings?"


I'll just repeat what's been already covered: When new oil is discovered, it shoots out of the ground of its own accord for about 5-10 years. You then put one of those bobby thingys on it, and that'll get you oil for another 70 years.

After 70 years, you will have extracted roughly 30% of the total oil in there. And that's basically doin' nothin'.

In order to do anything else to extract the oil, the price of oil has to be above, say, $40 a barrel for it to be worth the money. You know how much oil costs right now per barrel? A fuckload more than $40.

Yep. Nothing to see here.
I've heard it tastes like candy, too!

[Karen]

Hello, Auto X prize.....
http://auto.xprize.org/

Why an Automotive X PRIZE?

* Because today's oil consumption is not sustainable - our current use of oil endangers our health, our economy, and the political and social stability of the world.
* Because 40% of world oil output fuels the automotive industry - and, in the U.S., 65% of oil consumption is in the transportation sector.

[Robert Sharp]

I love the people in this thread that say it doesn't matter as long as this disaster happens after they are dead. I thought Bush was the only one who thought like that, but clearly we've found conclusive evidence for why the environment is being fucked up at a record pace.

[Ephraim]

It's been mentioned a few times, but we already have a solution. Nuclear energy. The problem is the also mentioned NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem. I believe that the public's current negative attitude towards nuclear power will quickly change when the alternative to heating their homes is oil that sells at $150+ a barrel. Nuclear power can also be the energy source for the batteries in electric vehicles.

As the nuke plants proliferate, will there be an accident? Possibly. But people won't care at that point, they'll shrug and move on, just like they do over the loss of life after any major disaster (e.g. Katrina). In terms of disposing of the waste, once again the future is uncertain, but the currently maligned "shoot it into space" solution might look a hell of a lot better with people freezing to death in their homes each winter.

[MikeJ]

In terms of disposing of the waste, once again the future is uncertain, but the currently maligned "shoot it into space" solution might look a hell of a lot better with people freezing to death in their homes each winter.

What's wrong with burying it in a secure place? That strikes me as a lot cheaper and safer than space cannons armed with radioactive material.

[WarrenM]

I love the people in this thread that say it doesn't matter as long as this disaster happens after they are dead.
No, it doesn't matter to me. Personally. I'm not responsible for running the country or it's policies so don't try laying this crap at my doorstep.

[Ephraim]

What's wrong with burying it in a secure place? That strikes me as a lot cheaper and safer than space cannons armed with radioactive material.

The burying it in a secure place solution is the currently preferred one. Unfortunately it has a similar problem to the "shoot it into space" solution, which is the real concern that something will go wrong during transport. In one case, it's transport to the launch site, and transport from the Earth to space. In the other, it's transport to the burial site. Which seems to be the better solution, but does leave you with the problem that eventually you fill up the burial site and need another. Plus you need to "secure" it, and you need to do so in such a way that will last a very, very, very long time. Whereas something launched into space is gone forever.

Neither are particularly good solutions. But again, better to risk the occasional spill/leak than see the world devolve into feudalism, I suppose.

[Jason McCullough]

The thing with Kunstler is that it all comes down to "when things get tough, the people of the US will commit virtual economic suicide, because they're lazy fat fucks who love SUVs and huge houses, rather than make surprisingly minor adjustments."

[mouselock]

What we really need is for somebody to genetically engineer a plant that grows little sacs of 94 octane gasoline.

I remember when we could grow food.. back before the genes got crossed and the great midwestern fire of aught-eight. ;)

[Damien Neil]

The good news is ethanol. The bad news is there could be not enough food to feed the entire world in the next 50 years, so is using corn for ethanol the best idea? Hmm..

Where are food shortages supposed to come from? Current estimates have the world population peaking at about 150% of where it is now, which we should be able to feed easily. I suppose climate change could throw a wrench in the works, but that's hardly a certainty at this point.

Of course, not everyone is getting enough to eat at the moment, but that's more a political problem than a resources one. (i.e., there's plenty of food, but getting it to the people who need it isn't always easy.)

It's been mentioned a few times, but we already have a solution. Nuclear energy. The problem is the also mentioned NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem. I believe that the public's current negative attitude towards nuclear power will quickly change when the alternative to heating their homes is oil that sells at $150+ a barrel. Nuclear power can also be the energy source for the batteries in electric vehicles.

Bingo.

[cliffski]

It's been mentioned a few times, but we already have a solution. Nuclear energy. The problem is the also mentioned NIMBY (not in my back yard) problem. I believe that the public's current negative attitude towards nuclear power will quickly change when the alternative to heating their homes is oil that sells at $150+ a barrel. Nuclear power can also be the energy source for the batteries in electric vehicles.


I might be wrong, but dont we need uranium for this? and isnt there a shortage of that? and also, dont all nuke plants need to be near huge water sources? is that not an issue for some countries?
Plus this means everyone using nuclear, including N korea, Iran, etc. Are we all ok with that?

I think we waste way too much power right now. Its simpler and easier to have us use CFL light bulbs than it is to build nuclear power stations. I also dont see why stores leave their lights on overnight when empty, yada yada...

[WarrenM]

Its simpler and easier to have us use CFL light bulbs than it is to build nuclear power stations.
The hell?

[cliffski]

if everyone in the UK switched one light bulb to use energy efficient ones, I'm told that we save enough energy to turn off a power station.
hence, energy effiiency can mean needing less of the things. Plus it's way cheaper, and more efficient.
Energy Efficiency FTW.

[DeepT]

The good news is ethanol. The bad news is there could be not enough food to feed the entire world in the next 50 years, so is using corn for ethanol the best idea? Hmm..

No, this is not a viable answer. The amount of energy you get from ethanol isn't much more then it takes for you to make the stuff.

The "Big Deal" with ethanol is that it is clean burning compared to petroleum. If energy in general becomes a problem, ethanol will not help us. If pollution is your problem, then ethanol is a good choice.

[Elton]

The Economist just had (another) piece this week about how American subsidies for corn-based ethanol are stupid. Sugar-based ethanol from Brazil is apparently much less energy-intensive to make, but there are tariffs on ethanol imports so that American corn farmers can fully enjoy having their anuses licked by the government.

[eliandi]

No, this is not a viable answer. The amount of energy you get from ethanol isn't much more then it takes for you to make the stuff.

The "Big Deal" with ethanol is that it is clean burning compared to petroleum. If energy in general becomes a problem, ethanol will not help us. If pollution is your problem, then ethanol is a good choice.

Good point, T, but it begs the followup question around overall polution production. Given it causes polution to make corn-based ethanol and blend into gas, and we know energy going into corn ethanol production is near the output of the fuel, does the clean-burn reward make up for the upfront polution cost and what is the total benefit.

Not to take this too far into politics, but a crank on the EPA regs for polution producers (from car manufacturers fleet milage requirements to cement plants pollution) and increasing taxation on poluters (again, from cars to industry) would have acheived far more results without the creation of an entire subsidized ethanol fuel industry.

[bigdruid]

I would've found that article more convincing, if there wasn't such a smug overtone of "Ha, suburbanites, I warned you to give up your cars, you wouldn't listen to me, and now your children will wander the wastelands of Orange County eating rats and their own feces! Bwahahahahaha!".

Seriously, though, higher oil prices provides a great incentive to change people's living habits and will drive investment in alternative energy sources. I'm not terribly alarmed...yet.

[mouselock]

Good point, T, but it begs the followup question around overall polution production. Given it causes polution to make corn-based ethanol and blend into gas, and we know energy going into corn ethanol production is near the output of the fuel, does the clean-burn reward make up for the upfront polution cost and what is the total benefit.

Yes, because it's far easier to regulate the pollutants (and the efficiency) of large scale power plants (which are presumably what's providing the input energy for ethanol conversion) than it is from individual internal combustion engines.

And that's basically what the shortage of oil comes down to: Operating internal combustion engines that are self-reliant - home generators, automobiles, industrial machinery that operates off their own boiler/combustion process, etc.. etc.. etc..

So even if it's not as energy efficient there's still a net gain to be had (both pollution and cost-wise) if we have a viable IC fuel other than refined petroleum.

[Nick Walter]

The Economist just had (another) piece this week about how American subsidies for corn-based ethanol are stupid. Sugar-based ethanol from Brazil is apparently much less energy-intensive to make, but there are tariffs on ethanol imports so that American corn farmers can fully enjoy having their anuses licked by the government.

Were they citing the same old studies about ethanol? Last time I looked into this matter there were a bunch of studies all saying ethanol is net energy negative or barely net energy positive but if you looked into the scientists behind the papers and studies one anti-ethanol fanatic researcher behind them all. I'm hoping that's changed, it's an important enough issue that it needs more serious study.

[Odysseus]

if you looked into the scientists behind the papers and studies one anti-ethanol fanatic researcher behind them all.

Oh yeah? Who?

[Rob_Merritt]

I love the people in this thread that say it doesn't matter as long as this disaster happens after they are dead. I thought Bush was the only one who thought like that, but clearly we've found conclusive evidence for why the environment is being fucked up at a record pace.

We will run out of power, food, clean water, air, sun, etc and eventually everyone will be dead, there will be no more humans. All we are debating is when this will happen.

[Chris Nahr]

if everyone in the UK switched one light bulb to use energy efficient ones, I'm told that we save enough energy to turn off a power station.
hence, energy effiiency can mean needing less of the things. Plus it's way cheaper, and more efficient.

Also, if everyone in the UK played football or darts instead of computer games made by cliffski they wouldn't need their computers as much, and you could turn off another power station.

Compact fluorescents take more energy to make than traditional light bulbs, by the way, and they are harder to recycle. Frequently turning them on and off reduces their life span and increases the share of these costs. I'd be interested in a comparison of the total energy used from raw materials to lamp and back again, for both types. All I'm seeing is the energy use of the CF while it's lit.

[Ephraim]

I might be wrong, but dont we need uranium for this? and isnt there a shortage of that? and also, dont all nuke plants need to be near huge water sources? is that not an issue for some countries?
Plus this means everyone using nuclear, including N korea, Iran, etc. Are we all ok with that?

I think we waste way too much power right now. Its simpler and easier to have us use CFL light bulbs than it is to build nuclear power stations. I also dont see why stores leave their lights on overnight when empty, yada yada...

I would recommend CANDU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU) (or the coming around 2016 Advanced CANDUs, which don't use expensive heavy water) reactors, being a proud Canadian and all. They used to need a large body of water to dump their excess hot water, but are now much more efficient. I don't think the body of water needs to be all that big. They also can be fueled by non-enriched uranium, which reduces most of the weaponization concerns.

In terms of the scarcity of uranium, it's a not really a problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_and_Reserves), but you don't need all that much because the best fuel to use in a CANDU is a combination of a small amount uranium and some plutonium, which we currently have an abundance of thanks to all those uneeded, decommishioned nukes. CANDU reactors can also use depleted uranium waste from older-style nuke plants. Or, finally, natural thorium as a full uranium substitute.

I agree that everyone should do everything in their power to reduce their energy footprint. Why not? It's pretty painless, and if it becomes a way of life then we'll do it automatically (much like recycling) and there will some real good coming out of it, regardless of people's fatalism. But why not do both? Switch over to nuclear power (yes, with its inherent risks) and reduce our consumption, so we don't need as many nuke plants.

[Robert Sharp]

We will run out of power, food, clean water, air, sun, etc and eventually everyone will be dead, there will be no more humans. All we are debating is when this will happen.

I don't get your point. Mine is that a lot of people don't care when as long as it is after they are dead. I get what the debate is in this thread, but I was noting the number of people who always jump into such threads with a "Who cares? It won't happen in my lifetime!"

[Robert Sharp]

Is efficiency really the issue though? If we find alternate fuel sources that are more abundant than oil-based products, they could still be inefficient, even relatively so, as long as we have the ability to produce them. I get the total inefficiency would be bad, but why would relative inefficiency be bad? The issue here is that we may run out of oil or whatever energy source you have in mind as a limited resource. Granted ethanol may be inefficient, but if it's abundant, why does that matter? I'm not trying to be a smartass. I just don't get the efficienty counter point.

[Hanzii]

Biofuels are cool.
The world is full of starving people, yet we subsidize farms to grow food, which we then burn.

[Jakub]

Is efficiency really the issue though? If we find alternate fuel sources that are more abundant than oil-based products, they could still be inefficient, even relatively so, as long as we have the ability to produce them. I get the total inefficiency would be bad, but why would relative inefficiency be bad? The issue here is that we may run out of oil or whatever energy source you have in mind as a limited resource. Granted ethanol may be inefficient, but if it's abundant, why does that matter? I'm not trying to be a smartass. I just don't get the efficienty counter point.
Because if it isn't efficient, it's expensive.

Don't think of things in terms of money, think of them in terms of the energy required to produce them.

Depending on where you're making oil, you get anywhere from 6-7 to as little as 2 barrels of oil per barrel you use to extract it. That means energy to make the equipment, feed the people, etc.

Basically, you're going to the bank, you're giving them a dollar, and they give you 5 dollars back.

Now, let's take the hypothetical 1:1 barrel of oil from ethanol ratio. By the time you use fertilizer on the corn, harvest it, strip the kernels, heat them up, process them, feed the farmer, and transport it - you've used an entire barrel's worth of energy to get one barrel. Net gain, 0. You went to the bank, you gave them a dollar, and they gave you a dollar back. You can do this forever and you cannot gain anything from it. This means there is no excess energy to drive cars, make plastics, fuel power plants, and so on.

That's the whole point of an oil economy: you get free energy. It's going to the bank, giving them a dollar, and getting 5 dollars back. And you keep doing this, and because you're wanting to show off your money, you buy a car and fancy TV and so on - and your family grows big. You can afford lots of food and housing and everyone's happy and having kids. But you keep exchanging one dollar for five as long and often as you can the only thing that stops you from getting more is fact that the bank workers can't move faster (simulated extraction rate), and demand for five dollars keeps up with extraction so you can't quite turn around 5 dollars into 25 on the same day.

The bank, however, like the world, doesn't have an unlimited supply. Eventually the dollar is exchanged so often and so many times that you can no longer get one dollar for five. You get one for four, because the bank workers have to go deeper into the vault, and the money's harder to find and get out. You've now passed peak extraction - there's still lots of money left, but you can no longer get it out at the same rate you NEED it - because you've become dependent on it. So you settle for four dollars, then three, then two, and the whole time you're getting poorer, you can buy fewer things, you can't feed the huge family that you had with all those decades of easy money, etc.

[Robert Sharp]

Thanks, Jakub. So with ethanol, is it really a 1:1 ratio? If so, it seems unfeasible, but couldn't better refinement or efficiency of the engines using it or whatever make that ratio better?

[MikeJ]

Thanks, Jakub. So with ethanol, is it really a 1:1 ratio? If so, it seems unfeasible, but couldn't better refinement or efficiency of the engines using it or whatever make that ratio better?

The other thing to consider with the biofuels is land use. If the process isn't efficient, say 1.5:1, then growing the biofuels will take quite a bit of arable farmland, perhaps more than we have. The fuels can also compete with food production and we don't have an infinite supply of that either. That last few years, we've consumed more grain than we've grown. We can certainly grow more if we need to, but those changes to land use have environmental impact as well. Too bad so much of the best farmland is continually getting built over the for expanding suburbs.

[Fugitive]

Supposedly algae is a super-efficient source of biodiesel (or so says Wikipedia), but I have no idea what other impracticalities there may be around its production.

[Jakub]

Thanks, Jakub. So with ethanol, is it really a 1:1 ratio? If so, it seems unfeasible, but couldn't better refinement or efficiency of the engines using it or whatever make that ratio better?
There's a lot of debate about how much energy you need to put into ethanol production. However, whatever the actual ratio is, it's not nearly as good as oil. Nothing is. Which is what makes oil cheap. No doubt the process can become more efficient and you might be able to use, like, solar-powered trucks to transport it and save on energy use there, but nothing outside of science-fiction could possibly beat petroleum.

Also, you need to consider land use. You need a lot of corn to make a gallon of ethanol. How do you decide the proportion of land to convert to ethanol production and the proportion to food? Already in Mexico people are restless because of the steep rise in the cost of tortilla bread, which is made from corn. The price of corn is skyrocketing partly because of ethanol demands, and partly because of speculation by ethanol makers and grain buyers. It's a complicated issue as well, but at the core, it's undeniable that our thirst for energy is driving up food prices - whether by perceived demand or actual. And ultimately, if we do decide to go ethanol, we'll be faced with that choice: how much land for energy, how much for food? Are we willing to buy up food in Africa and Asia and Latin America so we can drive to work?

Modern cities, especially American cities focused on suburbs, are utterly car-dependent.

[Ben]

But the timescales we are talking about are generational. 50 years ago very few people were retarded enough to deal with a 90 minute commute to live in a better school district, 50 years from now people won't be making that decision anymore.

[shift6]

The other thing to consider with the biofuels is land use. If the process isn't efficient, say 1.5:1, then growing the biofuels will take quite a bit of arable farmland, perhaps more than we have.
We have tons of unused farmland. By "unused" I include those which are subsidized by federal tax money since there isn't enough demand to buy what they grow. We could dump the No Farmer Left Behind shit and have them start growing stuff for biofuels. Or hell, stuff that sequesters carbon re: Global Climate Change. At least then our subsidy monies would be getting something in return.

[MikeJ]

We have tons of unused farmland. By "unused" I include those which are subsidized by federal tax money since there isn't enough demand to buy what they grow. We could dump the No Farmer Left Behind shit and have them start growing stuff for biofuels. Or hell, stuff that sequesters carbon re: Global Climate Change. At least then our subsidy monies would be getting something in return.

Well, a ton of farmland doesn't go very far, depending on how thin you spread it.

I agree there is more land that could be put to use in the US. I don't think you can count all subsized land though, except for the 'pay you not grow anything' variety which I doubt is widespread. As far as I understand, most of the subsidies actually lead to more land being worked.

Still, if bio-fuel were really a 1.5:1 ratio (as I used in my example), it would require quite a bit of farmland to replace all the US oil imports. More than what could be produced at the drop of a hat, I think. Certainly more than Europe, India or China has left unused.

My overall point is simply that the efficiency of the whole biofuel process is pretty critical, since we don't have an unlimited supply of useful farmland. Worldwide, I doubt we could increase the amount of productive farmland by even 20%, and no increases would come without environmental impacts. Also, many of the ways we might increase per-acre yield are pretty energy intensive, which is not so useful if the whole purpose is to grow energy.